amtec report on the ppm capability of gda · reviews on gda and investigating the opportunities for...

AMTEC Consulting plc Excalibur House 2 The Millennium Centre Crosby Way Farnham Surrey GU9 7XX

Tel: 01252 737866 Fax: 01252 737855 Email: [email protected] Web: www.amtec.co.uk

Registered in England and Wales No 2991335 AMTEC is a registered trademark

Report for the Health & Safety Executive

on the adoption of OGC best practice PPM into

the GDA Programme

31st March 2009

HSE– GDA PPM Review AM/12355/P

Table of Contents

1. Management Summary ........................................................................... 1

2. Introduction.............................................................................................. 3

3. Conduct of the Review ............................................................................ 4

4. Recommendations .................................................................................. 5

5. Next Steps............................................................................................... 6

Appendix A: Gateway-style report of a Gate 0 Review of GDA ..................... 7

Appendix B: Detailed PPM role descriptions................................................ 17

Appendix C: About AMTEC Consulting plc .................................................. 20

Appendix D: AMTEC Programme and Project Mngt Practice...................... 22

Confidentiality This document was prepared for HSE and relates to a review of the adoption of best practice programme and project management techniques into the Generic Design Assessment programme. Its content is commercial-in-confidence and may not be used for any other purpose without the prior consent of AMTEC Consulting plc.

Copyright Statement Copyright on the content of this document is owned by AMTEC Consulting plc. This document shall not be copied in the whole or in part without prior consent.

Author Richard Morton

Reviewer David Roper

Revision Version 1

Date 31st March 2009

The AMTEC Team AMTEC team members for this review were:

Richard Morton Review Project leader

David Roper Review Team member


1

1. Management Summary

Background

In January 2008 the Government announced its support for the building of a new generation of nuclear power stations in the UK. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and the Environment Agency have a key role in the nuclear power programme; by making sure that any new nuclear power station built in the UK meets the highest standards of safety, security, environmental protection and waste management.

As a first step in achieving this aim, in August 2008 HSE started work on assessing a number of new nuclear power station designs, using a newly-developed process. This process is called Generic Design Assessment or GDA as it involves looking at all the design issues separately from the other important factors such as whether the location chosen for the siting of a new nuclear power station is suitable, or whether the potential operator is competent.

The aim of GDA is to undertake regulatory assessments of designs, leading to Design Acceptance Confirmations that would remain valid for numerous implementations of the designs by different operators at different locations. The GDA would demonstrate that UK legal requirements are capable of being met by the design.

Objectives

This review has been commissioned as a result of a number of comments from independent reviews of the GDA process, concerning the adoption of OGC programme and project management best practice.

Accordingly this review is considering both the appropriateness of carrying out OGC Gateway™ Reviews on GDA and investigating the opportunities for improving GDA programme and project management through learning from OGC best practice in programme and project management (PPM).

Approach The approach adopted on this review was in the style of an OGC Gateway™ Review (although on a reduced scale). This approach was adopted deliberately as it:

1. Allowed HSE to get a better understanding of the OGC Gateway™ Review process, and hence inform them in their consideration of adopting it

2. Gave an active demonstration of OGC best practice in Project and Programme management.

Major Findings The review findings are presented in two levels:

1. The findings and recommendations of the Gateway – style review are presented in Appendix A. This appendix is structured in accordance with the format of an OGC Gate 0 (Programme) review report

2. Broader findings and recommendations of the appropriateness of adopting best practice PPM techniques within GDA are presented in the body of this report, and cover:


2

• It is appropriate, and constructive, to consider GDA as a programme in the sense described by OGC in its best practice guide “Managing Successful Programmes”. A full time programme manager should be identified and given responsibility for the delivery of the programme.

• All the work on design assessment, and in particular the liaison with the Requesting Parties (RPs), would clearly benefit from the coordination that would arise from putting an empowered project manager in post. This could be done for each design actively being assessed. The project managers would report to the programme manager.

• The work that has been introduced on developing project management documentation could be extended and adopted by the project managers for use in delivering their projects. This work would conform with the expectations of a Programme Management Office (PMO) and would sensibly report into the programme manager.

Key Recommendations Amongst the set of recommendations provided in section 4, the three key recommendations are presented in terms of recommended next steps for the programme in section 5:

1. The GDA programme should be considered as a first stage of an integrated programme of support by HSE to the Government’s new nuclear programme. This integrated HSE programme should be placed under the OGC Gateway™ Review process to benefit from best practice programme and project management (PPM) assurance.

2. Two experienced Project Managers should be assigned to the GDA programme. It is recommended that these project managers are PRINCE2 practitioners – as a strong indication that they will have the necessary skills and personal attributes.

3. Re-organise the programme along the lines of a traditional programme:

• Place the two Project Managers directly under control of the Programme Manager (the Head of Unit 6C)

• Position 6G Project Planning within 6C and rename it the Programme Management Office (PMO), retaining all 6G functions, and appointing the Head of 6G as the PMO Manager

• Align the Project Technical Inspectors (PTIs) closely with their respective Project Managers to provide a single point of understanding for each design. These PTIs should be under the Project Managers but with a dotted line into the Programme Manager.

• Move into the PMO:

− Stakeholder engagement activity from 6B

− Quality Assurance and Governance from elsewhere in 6C.

− The JPO

• Recognise Nuclear Directorate Units 6D and 6E (and potentially other functions within 6C) as resource pools, supplying expert staff into the GDA Projects, and equip those units with better capacity planning tools (it may be possible to arrange for the PMO to run these tools on behalf of the units.)


3

2. Introduction

About This Document This document is the AMTEC Consulting report of a review into the appropriateness of adopting OGC Best Practice Programme and Project Management (PPM) techniques, and the OGC Gateway™ Review process in particular across ND projects, and the Generic Design assessment in particular.

Scope of the Review The review has been commissioned as a result of a number of comments from independent reviews of the GDA process. These have included:

• The Tim Stone Review, which recommended the secondment into GDA of “at least three experienced project and programme managers to help manage and support the three current GDA streams”

• The first report of the GDA process review board, which included recommendations that “the Office of Government Commerce (OGC) process for Programme Management be considered as an example of best practice” and “That actions are taken to strengthen the Programme management team by the addition of generic project management expertise”

• The second report of the process review board recommended that “the approach to project management would benefit from closer conformance with the OGC model..” and “this … specifies regular ‘Phase Gate Reviews’, as key testing steps in the process.

• The Health and Safety Laboratory report “An initial assessment of GDA Governance and Project Management Methodology” which observed that while significant progress had been made in applying programme and project management (PPM) practices to GDA, further development (of PPM) was necessary to ensure effective and timely delivery of the desired outcome of GDA.

Accordingly this review is considering both the appropriateness of carrying out OGC Gateway™ Reviews on GDA and investigating the opportunities for improving programme and project management through learning from OGC best practice in programme and project management (PPM).

Contact Information

The point of contact for this report is:

Richard Morton AMTEC Consulting Plc Director of Consulting Excalibur House Telephone: 01252 731523 2 The Millennium Centre Mobile: 07796 266602 Crosby Way E-mail: [email protected] Farnham, Surrey GU9 7XX


4

3. Conduct of the Review

Approach/ Methodology The approach adopted on this review was in the style of an OGC Gateway™ Review process (although on a reduced scale). This approach was adopted deliberately as it:

1. Allowed HSE to get a better understanding of the Gateway Review process, and hence inform them in their consideration of adopting it

2. Gave an active demonstration of OGC Best practice in Project and Programme management.

Summary Findings The review findings are presented in two levels:

1. The findings and recommendations of the Gateway – style review are presented in Appendix A. This appendix is structured in accordance with the format of an OGC Gate 0 (Programme) review report

2. Broader findings and recommendations of the appropriateness of adopting best practice PPM techniques within GDA are presented in the body of this report.

Key findings of the appropriateness of adopting PPM techniques are as follows:

• It is appropriate, and constructive, to consider GDA as a programme in the sense described by OGC in its best practice guide “Managing Successful Programmes”

• GDA has a well defined and active governance process, and accordingly can be seen (by senior HSE management and key stakeholders) to be progressing and under control. However the burden of programme management appears to fall to the Project Director. A full time programme manager should be identified and given responsibility for the delivery of the programme.

• Management and governance of activity from programme manager level downwards is much less clear. All the work carried out on the assessment of particular designs could be grouped together as projects in the sense described in the OGC PRINCE2 best practice guide “Managing Successful Projects”

• The work on design assessment, and in particular the liaison with the Requesting Parties (RPs), would clearly benefit from the coordination that would arise from putting an empowered Project Manager in post. This could be done for each design actively being assessed. The project managers would report to the programme manager.

• The work that has been introduced on developing project management documentation could be extended and adopted by the project managers for use in delivering their projects. This work would conform with the expectations of a Programme Management Office and would sensibly report into the programme manager.


5

4. Recommendations

Summary Recommendations Based on the key findings described in the previous section, a number of recommendations are presented her on the adoption of programme and project management into the Generic Design Assessment process:

1. The role of GDA Programme Manager must be introduced and conform with the responsibilities of the role as defined in the OGC Managing Successful Programmes guide. (further detail are given in Appendix B)

2. The Programme Manager must take responsibility for a “Programme Management Office” (PMO) equipped to provide the programme manager with all the information required for successful management of the programme. (further detail are given in Appendix B)

3. The existing Unit 6G should become part of the PMO, with the Head of Unit taking on the role of PMO Manager. The JPO should also be moved into the PMO. The “Quality and Governance function of Unit 6C should also move into the PMO.

4. Two experienced Project Managers should be appointed – one each for ERP and AP1000 Design Assessments. The project managers will report to the programme manager. The project managers should be supported by the PMO, possibly through project coordinators who will be responsible for the projects use of all relevant PMO services. (further detail are given in Appendix B)

5. The two existing Project Technical Inspectors should be closely aligned to the two Project Managers, and provide each project manager with technical assurance on all aspects of the particular designs under assessment by their project.

6. The project managers should take responsiblity for the successful delivery of their projects and be responsible for the production (by the PMO) of complete, feasible, accurate and timely plans for their projects.

7. Appropriate governance arrangements (Project Boards) should be put in place to ensure the project managers are correctly steered by the programme manager.

8. The Heads of Assessment Units should provide assessment resources to the projects through the introduction of capacity planning arrangements to ensure optimum use of available skills.

9. Following the imminent departure of the Head of Unit 6B Stakeholder engagement, these responsibilities should be moved into the PMO.


6

5. Next Steps

There are three significant “next steps” to commence the delivery of the changes recommended above:

1. The GDA programme should be considered as a first stage of an integrated programme of support by HSE to the Government’s new nuclear programme. This integrated HSE programme should be placed under the OGC Gateway™ Review process to benefit from best practice programme and project management (PPM) assurance.

2. Two experienced Project Managers should be assigned to the GDA programme. It is recommended that these project managers are PRINCE2 practitioners – as a strong indication that they will have the necessary skills and personal attributes.

3. Re-organise the programme along the lines of a traditional programme:

• Place the two Project Managers directly under control of the Programme manager (the Head of Unit 6C)

• Position 6G Project planning within 6C and rename the PMO, and retaining all 6G functions, and appointing the Head of 6G as the PMO Manager

• Align the Project Technical Inspectors (PTIs) closely with their respective Project Managers to provide a single point of understanding for each design. These PTIs should be under the Project Managers but with a dotted line into the Programme Manager.

• Move into the PMO:

− Stakeholder engagement activity from 6B

− Quality Assurance and Governance from elsewhere in 6C.

− The JPO

• Recognise 6D and 6E as resource pools, supplying expert staff into the GDA Projects, and equip those units with better capacity planning tools (it may be possible to arrange for the PMO to run these tools on behalf of the unit.)

Other considerations of less significance, but likely to enhance the performance of the programme, include:

• Programme and Project management awareness training – to as wide an audience across the programme as possible, to instil a common language and understanding

• Including EA assessment workstreams under the Project Managers

• Introduce a “configuration management tool” into the PMO, to enable the PTIs to have a clear understanding of the design build at any point in the assessment, by defining the specific versions of components of the design included in specific versions of assessment workstream outputs.

• It should be assumed the Project Managers will take responsibility for Step 4 after Step 3 for their design – and possibly other design specific activities (arrangements for ordering of long lead items – site licence applications etc) drawing on the appropriate specialist resources to support these activities.


7

Appendix A: Gateway-style report of a Gate 0 Review of GDA

Note: The review that is the subject of this report was deliberately carried out in the style of an OGC Gateway™ Review to address the various comments that had been received recommending that the OGC Gateway™ Review process should be adopted for GDA. This report does not constitute an OGC Gateway Review™ Report.

Review Gate 0: Strategic Assessment

Version number: Version 1

Date of issue to SRO: 31st March 2009

SRO: Mr Kevin Allars

Department : HSE

Agency or NDPB: Nuclear Directorate

Review dates: 10/03/2009 to 13/03/2009

Review Team Leader:

Richard Morton

Review Team Member:

David Roper


8

DELIVERY CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

Delivery Confidence Assessment

The GDA programme is currently running as a result of the good will and determination of a set of highly competent technical specialists.

However, it is not benefiting from the support of best practice programme and project management. Consequently, the review team was unable to find evidence that the programme was on course to successfully meet its target end date.

The opinion was widely expressed that success constituted nothing more than completion of the design assessments, even when such assessments were accompanied by a large number of exclusions. However, it was not possible to see how even such an undesirable situation could be confidently predicted.

This situation described above is based on “informed opinion” and is not supported by appropriate programme / project management (PPM) documentation. The PPM documentation that has been made available to the review team (Gantt charts, milestone reports and a combined risk register) are at best summaries of progress to date accompanied by “best guesses” of what might happen to achieve the required completion dates for Step 3 and Step 4. The Gantt charts do not demonstrate a critical path; have tasks in the past with no progress shown and have activities finishing after the completion date. Possibly more seriously they show no impact of the very necessary dependencies between the individual assessment streams that will further undermine the timescale predictions for their completion.

Similarly the Risk Register – which is “integrated” with that of Environment Agency (EA) appears to avoid risks that seem, to the review team, to require urgent attention.

Furthermore, these two major “components” of the PPM documentation are managed by separate organisational strands – the plans fall under 6G: Project Planning and the Risk Register under the JPO (which sits as a separate reporting line).

Summary of Report Recommendations

The Review Team makes the following recommendations which are prioritised using the definitions below.

Ref. No.

Recommendation

Critical/

Essential/

Recommended

1. The role of the Programme Manager must be clarified and his responsibilities clearly defined as covering the delivery of a successful outcome to GDA

Critical

2. Each design under assessment should be considered as a project within Critical


9

the programme and an empowered Project Manager put in place, responsible for delivering a Design Acceptance Confirmation with an acceptable level of exclusions, to the stipulated timescales for completion of the GDA

3. Existing project level plans should be completed to enable a reasoned view to be taken of exactly what level of assessment resource is required and when.

Critical

4. Capacity planning needs to be introduced to determine as accurately as possible the total expected demand on assessment resources, initially across all design assessment projects of GDA, expanding in due course to cover other activities within the New Civil Reactors initiative.

Critical

5. The programme must seek lessons to be learnt from similar undertakings within the organization (or outside) where these lessons can help reduce the uncertainty surrounding some of the tasks that have been difficult to plan (e.g. to give benchmark estimates for particular assessment activities)

Critical

6. Project plans are to be reviewed, revised and completed to demonstrate the “most likely” activity plan to deliver the outputs.

Critical

7. A Programme Management Office should be created (out of the Project Planning Business Unit, the JPO and other relevant functions) with a view to integrating all programme support activities

Critical

Critical (Do Now) – To increase the likelihood of a successful outcome it is of the greatest importance that the programme/project should take action immediately

Essential (Do By) – To increase the likelihood of a successful outcome the programme/project should take action in the near future. [Note to review teams – whenever possible Essential recommendations should be linked to project milestones e.g. before contract signature and/or a specified timeframe e.g. within the next three months.]

Recommended – The programme/project should benefit from the uptake of this recommendation. [Note to review teams – if possible Recommended recommendations should be linked to project milestones e.g. before contract signature and/or a specified timeframe e.g. within the next three months.]


10

BACKGROUND Introduction

In January 2008 the Government announced its support for the building of a new generation of nuclear power stations in the UK. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and the Environment Agency have a key role in the nuclear power programme; by making sure that any new nuclear power station built in the UK meets the highest standards of safety, security, environmental protection and waste management.

As a first step in achieving this aim, in August 2008 HSE started work on assessing a number of new nuclear power station designs, using a newly-developed process. This process is called Generic Design Assessment or GDA as it involves looking at all the design issues separately from the other important factors such as whether the location chosen for the siting of a new nuclear power station is suitable, or whether the potential operator is competent.

The aims of the programme:

The aim of the GDA is to undertake regulatory assessments of designs, leading to Design Acceptance Confirmations that would remain valid for numerous implementations of the designs by different operators at different locations. The Generic Design Assessment would demonstrate that UK legal requirements are capable of being met by the design.

The key outputs from the GDA process will be public statements, with supporting technical reports, presenting the findings from the assessment of each of the designs. The intention is that an interim statement will be issued, following Step 3 of the assessment process, termed an “Overall Design Safety Review”, on the adequacy of the assessed safety features of the design. This will highlight any issues, which might lead to significant design or safety case changes. On completion of a more in-depth “Detailed Design Acceptance Assessment” (Step 4) a final statement will then be issued, providing confirmation (or otherwise) of design acceptance in each case.

The driving force for the programme:

Two drivers for the GDA programme have been identified:

i. Reducing regulatory uncertainties for licence applicants

ii. Reflecting more closely Governments commitment towards openness and transparency in regulatory processes

The procurement/delivery status:

The GDA programme does not encompass a procurement stage for the delivery of systems or services by a third party. A framework to supply Technical Support Contractors who will give technical and scientific advice to support the regulatory assessments has been procured.

Current position regarding OGC Gateway™ Reviews:

No formal OGC Gateway Reviews have been carried out on the GDA programme. This is an OGC Gateway-style review of the Programme.

The GDA programme has been reviewed a number of times and these reviews have all pointed out the need for improved PPM.


11

PURPOSE AND CONDUCT OF THE REVIEW

Purposes of the Review

The primary purposes of an OGC Gateway Review 0: Strategic Assessment, is to review the outcomes and objectives for the programme (and the way they fit together) and confirm that they make the necessary contribution to Ministers’ or the departments’ overall strategy. This review was carried out in the style of a OGC Gateway Review 0.

Annex A gives the full purposes statement for an OGC Gateway Review 0.

Conduct of the Review

The Review was carried out from 10th March to 13th March at HSE offices in Bootle. The team members are listed on the front cover.

The Review Team would like to thank Kevin Allars and Len Creswell, and the GDA Programme Team for their support and openness, which contributed to the Review Team’s understanding of the Programme and the outcome of this Review.


12

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1: Policy and business context 1.1 Is the business strategy to which this programme contributes agreed with the programme’s sponsoring group and robust? The business strategy delivers a key component of the government’s energy strategy.

1.2 Does the programme reflect the current policy and organisational environment and does the scope of the programme fit with the strategy? The programme reflects current policy, but the likely outcome of only two Design Acceptance Confirmation is out of line with the government’s initial request for three.

1.3 Is the governance framework fit for purpose and in particular is there commitment to key roles and responsibilities for this programme within current corporate priorities? The governance framework above Programme Manager now appears to be fit for purpose. However arrangements downwards from (and including) the programme manager are not in place.

Critical Recommendation 1: The role of the Programme Manager must be clarified and his responsibilities clearly defined as covering the delivery of a successful outcome to GDA.

Critical Recommendation 2: Each design under assessment should be considered as a project within the programme and an empowered Project manager put in place, responsible for delivering a Design Acceptance Confirmation with an acceptable level of exclusions, to the stipulated timescales for completion of the GDA.

1.4 Are the required skills and capabilities for this programme available, taking account of the organisation’s current commitments and capacity to deliver? It is generally accepted that the programme is lacking key skills in a number of assessment areas. In some areas (e.g. Human Factors) no resources currently exist and the lack of resource is not in question; however in other areas the view that there are resource shortages is not supported by convincing plans for their need.

Critical Recommendation 3: Existing project level plans should be completed to enable a reasoned view to be taken of exactly what level of assessment resource is required and when.

Critical Recommendation 4: Capacity planning needs to be introduced to determine as accurately as possible the total expected demand on assessment resources, initially across all design assessment projects of GDA, expanding in due course to cover other activities within the New Civil Reactors initiative.

1.5 Is the organisation able to learn from experience with this programme and other programmes? The organisation appears to have chosen to treat GDA as significantly different from other activities it has undertaken. In consequence an attitude exists that little can be learnt from experiences on other programmes.

Critical recommendation 5: The programme must seek lessons to be learnt from similar undertakings within the organization (or outside) where these lessons can help reduce the uncertainty surrounding some of the tasks that have been difficult to plan (e.g. to give benchmark estimates for particular assessment activities)

1.6 Is there a framework for managing issues and risk to this programme? There is a framework in place for managing issues and risks. Its appropriateness / effectiveness is discussed in detail in section 4.


13

2: Business case and stakeholders 2.1 Is there a clear understanding of the outcomes to be delivered by the programme and are they soundly based? There is a clear understanding of the OUTPUTS of the programme (Design Acceptance Confirmations - possibly with exclusions). There is little evidence (except at the most senior level) of the important link to the outcome of the programme – a safer, speedier acquisition of a balanced range of civil nuclear reactors.

2.2 Does the programme demonstrate a clear link with wider government objectives? Yes, the programme believes it is clearly linked to the government strategy for energy.

2.3 Is there an understanding of the scope of the programme? There is a clear understanding of the scope of the programme in terms of the work to ascertain design confirmation. There is however only limited understanding of the scope in terms of the impact of the number of design confirmations issued by the end of the programme.

2.4 What will constitute success? Delivery of two, or more, design acceptance confirmations with a manageable number of exclusions, will constitute success.

2.5 Who are the stakeholders and are they supportive? The key stakeholder of the initiative is the general public.

2.6 What are the component projects and sub-programmes of the programme, and why is it structured in this way? The programme can be considered as having two (or more) projects – each covering the assessment of a particular generic design. However it is not currently overtly structured in this way, resulting in confusion over the demand and supply of assessment resources, and the correct interfaces with the RP.

2.7 Is the proposed programme affordable? The programme is currently paid for by the RPs. Hence it is affordable by HSE.

2.8 Are there additional factors that could affect success? The programme is likely to be repeatedly subject to such factors. For example recent security issues concerning international exchanges of information has introduced a high risk into the programme.

2.9 Have programme controls been determined, especially where constituent projects will be ‘joined up’ with other organisations? Appropriate programme controls between HSE and EA have been determined and put in place.

3: Management of intended outcomes 3.1 Have the main outcomes been identified? As described previously the main outputs are well understood – the link between these and successful outcomes appears less well understood.

3.2 Are the planned outcomes still achievable, or have any changes in scope, relationship or value been properly agreed, and has the Business Case been reviewed? The planned outcomes are still achievable but there is considered to be a high risk associated with their achievement

3.3 Are key stakeholders confident that outcomes will be achieved when expected? Currently the key stakeholders are aware that achievement of the outcomes is in doubt.

3.4 Is there a plan for achieving the required outcomes? Currently, an inadequate, unusable plan exists for delivering the outputs. No plans are in place to mitigate the risk of the outcomes not being achieved.


14

Critical Recommendation 6: Project plans are to be reviewed, revised and completed to demonstrate the “most likely” activity plan to deliver the outputs.

4: Risk management 4.1 Have the major risks been identified? The risk register / risk management process is well developed but it does appear to have missed some of the major risks:

ii) Potential Operators not selecting confirmed designs

iii) Interaction with the RPs leading to confusion and delays due to lack of coordination within the programme.

iv) RP relationship damaged by programme efforts to maintain time alignment of assessments.

v) RPs handling of queries from the general public (via the JPO) being handled with priority over TQs from the design assessment workstreams.

4.2 Will risks be managed through a formal process? Yes, formal process in place and appears adequate. The review team was concerned about the apparent separation of the risk management process and the project planning process.

Critical recommendation 7: A Programme Management Office should be created (out of the Project Planning Business Unit, the JPO and other relevant functions) with a view to integrating all programme support activities.

4.3 Have assurance measures for the programme been put in place? Product (technical assessment) assurance is carried out informally by the responsible head of unit.

4.4 Is there a contingency plan and, where appropriate, business continuity plans? No programme level contingency plans / business continuity plan has been seen.

5: Review of Current Outcomes 5.1 Is the programme on track? Step 3 of the programme is not on track. The start of Step 3 was delayed until Oct 2008. Current plans indicate past tasks with no progress shown – although the accuracy of the plan itself is doubted. However there is confidence that Step 4 can still be completed to schedule for June 2011.

5.2 Have problems occurred and if so have they been resolved satisfactorily? Problems have occurred concerning timeliness and quality of RP responses to TQs. Real resolution of these problems (as opposed to promises to resolve) do not appear to be forthcoming.

6: Readiness for next phase – Delivery of Outcomes 6.1 Is there a continuing need for the programme? Yes

6.2 Have assumptions that have been made about the programme stood up? Yes

6.3 Will change resulting from the programme be managed? This is the topic of Phase 2

6.4 Are the funds to reach the next phase available? Because the GDA is financed by the RPs this is not considered a problem.


15

6.5 Are the required internal/external individuals and organisations suitably skilled, available and committed to carrying out the work? No but recruitment and other plans to alleviate this are in hand.

6.6 Are the plans for the next phase realistic? No – If the next phase is assumed to be Step 4 then they are included in the current plans but are unrealistic. If the next phase is assumed to be Phase 2 then only the highest level plans currently exist.

6.7 Are appropriate management controls in place? Management controls currently in place are just those above the programme manager.

6.8 Where procurement is a part of the programme: How is capability and capacity for acquisition to be managed? Not applicable.


16

ANNEX A

PURPOSES OF AN OGC GATEWAY™ REVIEW 0: STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT

• Review the outcomes and objectives for the programme (and the way they fit together) and

confirm that they make the necessary contribution to overall strategy of the organisation

and its senior management.

• Ensure that the programme is supported by key stakeholders.

• Confirm that the programme’s potential to succeed has been considered in the wider

context of the organisation’s delivery plans and change programmes, and any

interdependencies with other programmes or projects in the organisation’s portfolio and,

where relevant, those of other organisations.

• Review the arrangements for leading, managing and monitoring the programme as a whole

and the links to individual parts of it (e.g. to any existing projects in the programme’s

portfolio).

• Review the arrangements for identifying and managing the main programme risks (and the

individual project risks), including external risks such as changing business priorities.

• Check that provision for financial and other resources has been made for the programme

(initially identified at programme initiation and committed later) and that plans for the work

to be done through to the next stage are realistic, properly resourced with sufficient people

of appropriate experience, and authorised.

• After the initial Review, check progress against plans and the expected achievement of

outcomes.

• Check that there is engagement with the market as appropriate on the feasibility of

achieving the required outcome.

• Where relevant, check that the programme takes account of joining up with other

programmes, internal and external.


17

Appendix B: Detailed PPM role descriptions.

Programme Manager

The programme manager, as defined by the OGC is responsible for the effective co-ordination of the projects and their inter-dependencies, and any risks and other issues that may arise.

The programme manager is responsible for the overall integrity and coherence of the programme, and develops and maintains the programme environment to support each individual project within it - typically through the Programme Office function.

Specific responsibilities of the programme manager include:

• Planning and designing the programme and proactively monitoring its overall progress, resolving issues and initiating corrective action as appropriate;

• Defining the programme's governance arrangements;

• Quality assurance and overall integrity of the programme - focusing inwardly on the internal consistency of the programme; and outwardly on its coherence with infrastructure planning, interfaces with other programmes and corporate technical and specialist standards;

• Managing the programme's budget on behalf of the SRO, monitoring the expenditures and costs against delivered and realised benefits as the programme progresses;

• Facilitating the appointment of individuals to the project delivery teams;

• Ensuring that the delivery of new products or services from the projects is to the appropriate levels of quality, on time and within budget, in accordance with the programme plan and programme governance arrangements;

• Ensuring that there is efficient allocation of common resources and skills within the project portfolio;

• Managing third party contributions to the programme;

• Managing the communications with all stakeholders;

• Managing both the dependencies and the interfaces between projects;

• Managing risks to the programme's successful outcome;

• Initiating extra activities and other management interventions wherever gaps in the programme are identified or issues arise;

• Reporting progress of the programme at regular intervals to the programme director;

• On large and complex projects it may be appropriate to appoint other individuals to support the Programme Manager for some of the particular responsibilities listed above, for example a risk manager, a communication manager or a financial manager.


18

The Programme Management Office

The Programme Management Office (PMO) creates the programme “infrastructure” to provide the tools and procedures whereby the programme is managed.

The Programme Management Office will create tools in each of the following streams: • Programme Plan – presenting the current coordinated – high level – view of the state of

progress and interdependencies between the projects. Produce all programme level MIS.

• Risk Register / Risk Management process – to ensure all programme level risks are owned and mitigation activity undertaken. This includes aggregated project risks that need exposure at programme level.

• Issues Handling / Change Control mechanism – to ensure the impact of external events are assessed and assimilated into the effected projects.

• Quality Standards and Quality Assurance procedures – to ensure deliverables are “fit for purpose”

• Benefits Register / Benefits Management – maintaining a visible record of all benefits to be realised by the programme and the responsibilities of the underlying projects to enable that realisation.

• Financial Control mechanisms – enabling budgets to be secured through the preparation of the programme Business Case and monitoring of monthly / yearly programme spend.

• Communications Strategy – creating a “branding” for the ensuring that all relevant stakeholder groups are kept aware of progress and are consulted before any major changes are undertaken.

• Secretariat (PSO) – to arrange and manage all regular and ad-hoc programme meetings and satisfy all reporting requirements

• Project Co-ordinators – to ensure all PMO information relating to each particular project is collected and disseminated to time and quality requirements.

The Project Manager

The Project Manager is the individual responsible for delivering the project. The Project Manager leads and manages the project team, with the authority and responsibility to run the project on a day-to-day basis.

Specific responsibilities of the Project Manager include:

• Designing and applying an appropriate project management framework for the project (using relevant project standards) incorporating the Gateway review process if required

• Managing the production of the required deliverables

• Planning and monitoring the project

• Adopting any delegation and use of project assurance roles within agreed reporting structures

• Preparing and maintaining the Project Plan, Stage and Exception Plans as required


19

• Manage project risks, including the development of contingency plans

• Liaison with programme management and related projects to ensure that work is neither overlooked nor duplicated

• Overall progress and use of resources, initiating corrective action where necessary

• Change control and any required configuration management

• Reporting through agreed reporting lines on project progress through Highlight Reports and stage assessments

• Liaison with appointed project assurance roles to assure the overall direction and integrity of the project

• Adopting technical and quality strategy

• Identifying and obtain any support and advice required for the management, planning and control of the project

• Managing project administration

• Conducting end project evaluation to assess how well the project was managed and preparing and end-project report

• Preparing a Lessons Learned report

• Preparing any follow-on action recommendations


20

Appendix C: About AMTEC Consulting plc

Introduction AMTEC is an independent advisory consultancy providing services to organisations within the public and private sectors. From its offices in Surrey, AMTEC is currently the 31st largest supplier of consultancy in the UK and the 16th largest supplier to the government sector. From its entry into the market in 1986, AMTEC continues to specialise in information systems and technology, and business and management consultancy. The Management Consultancy Magazine 2008 report of consultancies performance identified AMTEC as the third fastest growing Management Consultancy in the UK.

AMTEC Press Release 28-10-08:

Annual results released 22nd October 2008 saw AMTEC Consulting revenues rise from GBP 18.5m to GBP 30.6m, increasing 66% over 2007.

"2007/08 was an impressive year of growth for AMTEC with financial results that were our best ever," said Managing Director, Craig Wilson. "Success was based on a solid platform of business in our core sector, civil and central government but with a significant increase in revenues from developing markets such as health, education and homeland security. 2007 also saw a significant increase in collaborative work with partner organisations across the public sector."

Current initiatives in the UK public sector mean that demand for AMTEC's proven business transformation and project and programme management expertise remains high. Our independence, from large service providers, means that public sector organisations regard AMTEC as a 'Trusted Adviser' able to work in partnership with in-house teams to deliver high profile change programmes and realize the desired outcomes. AMTEC's growing reputation in the sector is recognised through the reward of further framework agreements at HMRC, Ministry of Defence, Defra and within the health and local government sectors.

AMTEC has also joined a select group of preferred sourcing partners to the Office of Government Commerce through its new 'External Resources Framework'. This latest success puts AMTEC in a ideal position to understand and be involved in a number of strategic change initiatives including: embedding sustainable procurement, estates rationalisation and transformation, 'Starting Gate' reviews to help shape effective policy, and OGC Gateway™ reviews/health checks for some of the most complex pan-government programmes.

"Looking forward, our focus on the public sector is also a significant advantage in the current economic climate," adds Craig Wilson. "The public sector has an agenda for change and AMTEC's reputation, experience and innovative approach positions us as a valued partner."

Public Sector Customer Base During its twenty two-year track record of supporting the public sector, AMTEC has developed a significant customer list, with many organisations from the following sectors:

• Central civil government, including transport; culture, media and sport; environment; law and order; trade and industry; welfare and education.

• Local and regional government. • Health and the NHS • MoD and armed services.


21

Mission Statement AMTEC’s mission is to enable organisations to respond to business and IS challenges, and improve performance by harnessing the most effective combination of people, structures, processes, systems and technology.

Services Our service expertise is managed through four consulting practices that continually monitor the key issues facing our customers and develop core competencies and techniques for addressing them.

Our consultancy is managed through four business-consulting practices. The practices are:

• Change, programme, project and management - best practice to deliver initiatives that will enable the business to achieve its strategic goals - programme and project management; risk management; change management; business process re-engineering; benefits management.

• IS and business Management - enables clients to fulfil their objectives through improved business practices and the exploitation of information - strategy, planning and performance management; communications; organisational restructuring; sourcing; operational efficiency.

• Information and knowledge management - delivers gains in productivity and efficiency benefits, through the exploitation of information/knowledge - strategy; improved sharing; culture change.

• Technology consulting - maximises the benefits from clients’ investment in technology - strategy and design of architecture; scoping, specification and selection; and the implementation of IT solutions.


22

Appendix D: AMTEC Programme and Project Mngt Practice

Overview AMTEC’s Programme, Project and Change Management Practice is designed to help clients to deliver initiatives that enable them to achieve its strategic goals in an efficient and effective manner. It provides consultancy to aid in the development and implementation of plans to accomplish organisational, process or technology-enabled change. Employing best practice techniques, our consultants provide support to clients and Senior Responsible Officers to help ensure that business initiatives are delivered within realistic time frames, elements such as quality and risk are effectively managed and intended benefits are realised.

Through our track record in supporting the delivery of major programmes within the public sector, AMTEC can assure progress and third party delivery through the following services:

• Leadership: strategy, leadership support, mentoring and facilitation, stakeholder management, governance arrangements, best practice, centres of excellence, lessons learnt.

• Delivery: programme management, project management, change management, programme organisation, programme management and support offices, skills and knowledge transfer.

• Support: project vitality health checks and reviews, project recovery, independent assurance, benefits realisation.

Scope AMTEC has supported hundreds of public sector organisations to successfully plan, deliver and assure their projects and programmes. This has been achieved through the following services.

Service Overview Example

OGC Gateway reviewers and team members

Either under OGCbs’ previous Gateway Review arrangements or via the new External Resources Framework (ERF). The scope of the framework includes: • Gateway* leaders and members for high-risk and

mission-critical reviews within the public sector, and leaders for medium risk reviews.

• Review of major projects under the auspices of HM Treasury's Major Project Review Group.

• Review of procurement capability.

• Support for Government Estate Transformation initiatives.

• Advice at senior level on procurement, programme and project management, strategy and business case development.

Carried out several hundred Gateway reviews for many departments in central civil government, local and regional government, health and the Ministry of Defence.

Strategic change and programme managers

For example, to ensure that a key business programme has an effective strategy with a clearly defined outcome, a manageable roadmap and in-built flexibility to respond to risk and new initiatives. This helps to ensure that the complexities of cultural and behavioural change are recognised and addressed in ways that encourage staff to embrace change.

Senior programme management support to the 4ward Programme (a major change programme) to help DfT to respond to the Capability Review undertaken by the Cabinet Office.

Project and programme management

Provision of PPM best practice to in-house teams, covering a combination of the following support:

Challenge or friendly critic function to test the

PPM support to Senior Civil Servants to help them effectively initiate and structure their projects.


23

consultants robustness of its plans, reports, deliverables and milestones.

Programme architecting function to help address major issues that could affect the outcome of the programme.

Programme leadership function to help the in-house team to drive the programme in the most effective way.

Introducing appropriate programme management best practice, rigour, tools and techniques.

Practical, hands-on support to help in-house teams to address areas of programme that need tightened up.

Skills and knowledge transfer to in-house team.

For example, helping the Tasts workstream, which is responsible for DfT’s Transport Strategy.

Project and programme managers

Highly experienced delivery agents who can pick up, own and deliver specific initiatives on behalf of the client organisation, by working as a full-time project or programme manger.

Project manager supporting the Metropolitan Police on its Mobile working on behalf of their Strategic and Emerging Technology Group.

Project and programme management support

Consultants or delivery agents who specialise in these key support functions and underpin some or all of the above functions. These roles cover both the secretarial and reporting-level functions that PMOs can play, right up to the strategic roles e.g. to provide the Board with a portfolio-level view of all of their projects and programmes.

PMO support to the Natural England Programme Office to help them structure and organisation the Programme and provide the Board with a clear and concise view of the entire programme landscape.

01

23

45

Local Govt

Health

Defence

Central Govt

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Gateway

Gateway Reviews carried out by AMTEC reviewers

amtec report on the ppm capability of gda · reviews on gda and investigating the opportunities for...

Documents